ILNews

Opinion regarding insurance company considers definition of ‘ever’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel was split in an opinion released today that considered the definition of “ever” on a home insurance application when it came to whether the homeowners insurance coverage was ever “declined, cancelled, or non-renewed.”

While the majority opinion found that “ever” should include all insurers who may have cancelled the plaintiffs’ coverage, a dissenting judge wrote that in this case, “ever” should have only included the cancellations by the defendant insurance company.

In Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Linda Good and Randall Good, No. 85A04-0905-CV-240, Linda and Randall Good had a fire March 16, 2003, that destroyed their home and all of its contents.

Only Linda’s name was on the policy she had with the insurance company. The policy was to last one year, beginning July 2, 2002. The insurance company had neither denied nor paid their claims regarding the fire pending an ongoing investigation concerning the fire’s cause. Linda sued March 9, 2004, for breach of contract based on the non-payment of the claim.

Two trials took place. The first trial was in December 2008, which ended in a mistrial. The second trial in January 2009 was bifurcated to address Linda’s breach of contract claim, to address Allied’s third-party claims against Randall that he made false statements about the fire, and to address Allied’s counterclaims against Linda.

Among Allied’s counterclaims were that Linda misrepresented her insurance cancellation history on the application. If the insurance company had known her true cancellation history, Allied claimed, the company would have either denied her coverage or required a higher premium for the coverage.

After hearing the evidence in the January 2009 trial, the court entered a directed verdict for the Goods. The jury awarded slightly more than $1 million in damages to Linda.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, finding that because Linda acknowledged that at least one and possibly three insurance companies had cancelled policies held by Linda and Randall, she had indeed misrepresented her cancellation history on the application when she claimed she was never denied coverage.

Linda claimed that because the way the form was worded, she interpreted it to mean whether she was ever denied coverage by Allied, and therefore didn’t include her cancellations from other insurance companies.

The Court of Appeals found that this misrepresentation was material in this case.

“A misrepresentation on an application for an insurance policy is ‘material’ if the fact misrepresented, had it been known to the insurer, would have reasonably entered into and influenced the insurer‘s decision whether to issue a policy or to charge a higher premium,” wrote Judge Melissa S. May for the majority.

However, in a footnote the court clarified this definition by adding, “Our opinion … should not, and cannot, be read to encourage, or even permit, parties to comb through insurance applications in hopes of finding any false statement in an effort to reduce premiums or avoid paying benefits. Only a ‘material’ false representation could permit either result.”

Because of these findings, Judge May wrote, “the trial court erred by denying Allied’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Allied on all counts.”

However, while Judge Michael P. Barnes concurred, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote a 9-page dissent.

Including an image of the application field in question, he wrote the application field about past insurance cancellations was unclear as to whether “ever” included all insurance companies or just Allied.

“Taking ‘ever’ out of its context seems to me to disregard how a reasonable person could construe the question,” he wrote. “Reading the form as presented above, a reasonable person could indeed interpret the item about prior cancellations as pertaining to the current insurer – particularly since the section heading is ‘INSURANCE COVERAGE,’ not ‘Prior Insurance Coverage,’ ‘Coverage History,’ or the like.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT